Modred189

PEBCAK, clearly.

But the point is, I want to play SP games on my laptop, while traveling.
I can’t play DIII.

Ah, but it didn’t. In fact it was a PC exclusive…

No, that modern console games are almost always up scaled, and when they are natively 1080, lose AA.

Don’t forget true 1080p and antialiasing at the same time.

AH, lucky you bought it through them. Fair enough.

More importantly, 32bit apps can only access 2 gb of real memory each. It’s actually more complicated and flexible than that, but look into the first supreme commander and its issues with the 2gb limit.

I guess my point is, you bought a game separated by a decade of gaming development before any reviews or demos were available. I just don’t see a lot of room for complaining (in regards to style etc, not the connectivity issues which are fair game imho) when you bought a product sight unseen.

But good luck getting a refund legitimately.

Sorry, $400. bad math, lols.

Case: $50
CPU/Mobo: $110
Ram: 30
HDD: $50
GPU:$110
PSU $50
=$350

LOL, you asked for a refund because you don’t like parts of the game after buying it right at launch? Nice. 0.o

DAMNIT Pc gaming s SO dead.

Here’s the easy answer, which( think) should apply to BOTH the US and the UK:
When ABC gives Show X to Hulu to show in the US, they are giving Hulu a license to show X ONLY to US customers. That’s all Hulu has. As such, they can only provide to YOU what they have: a license to show it in the US.
If you are viewing the content in a foriegn country there are a few issues:
A- You are viewing an unlicensed copy of the show (or an out-of-license copy), which is © infringement.
B- You are falsifying an online form by misrepresenting where you are located, which can be considered fraud, and can violate any number of US statutes like the CFAA, for unauthorized use of a computer system, etc.
C- You MIGHT be violating the digital milenium copyright act by circumventing a digital rights management system. The DMCA has not (AFAIK) been applied ion this way, but I suppose it might be.

Fantastic piece, and I LOLd during the video when you came up on the guy talking about you. What a perfect coincidence.

Though did you notice the printout lacked ads? Related? I wonder if internet-riding UltraOrthodox Jews all sport AdBlock along with their hats and coats?

Hooray for the return of the long-form article!

I thought I read somewhere that only applied to the desktop models and the laptop models WERE kepler… I’ll see if i can find it.

On a realted note, HOLY CRAP, silly good episode.

Holy new player batman! The fullscreen works!

i really want to be excited, but after owning my current M11x and handling an Air and the Zenbook, I just can’t see myself going to a standard size laptop. Wthen teh UX32 drops, I’ll be all over it.

But I think, for me and mine, the standard laptop is dead.

Don’t mistake policy for what the Supreme Court does. They don’t make policy, they determine if policy set by the other two branches is legal under the constitution. That is, they cannot deal with issues not brought before them. So if the Supreme Court does not like a law of a state, for example, even if it is unconstitutional in their view, they cannot deal with it until someone sues someone else and appeals MANY times.

A good example is the recent healthcare debate. The reason the Supreme Court is haring it is not because they have an issue with it, but because someone sued someone else (actually quite a few people sued) over the included "punishment’ for those that do not buy insurance. The constitution has rules that control the way that the US government can collect taxes. Also at issue is whether the government can force people to buy insurance like that. These are constitutional issues: Can teh government do this under the constitution.

The question is NOT whether the court thinks it’s a good idea for the country. In fact, it may be a bad idea, but constitutional.

So, those issues you brought up were not policy issues either:
Roe v. Wade was about whether or not a state could ban abortions under the constitution. Whether corporations could be treated as people was actually whether it was legal, under the constitution, for states to treat corporations as people (i.e., could sue, could be sued, served process, taxed, held liable for criminal actions etc).

These decisions are not policy making, they are determinations as to whether EXISTING policy is legal under the constraints of the constitution. Sure, fairness etc sometimes inform these decisions, but they are ALWAYS based on EXISTING policy, not creating it.

I like your point, but it has little to do with the actual case.
It’s hard to be specific, but here’s the short and sweet;

Oracle/Sun created Java. It made it, in terms of the code itself, open source, so anyone can go out and use the code. However, it is claiming that it owns a copyright over the APIs. that is, they used those free-to-use tools to create something “creative” in the APIs. It’s like saying you are Crayola, and you used the crayons to make a drawing. You don’t hold a copyright over the crayons, but you do over the drawing.

Google is claiming that they created the SAME drawings via "independent creation.That is, they did so without knowledge of the originals (or at least the specific individuals that did, lacked such knowledge). This is allowed in © law. If I, living in a vacuum, write, film and produce an exact replica of Avatar, I am not infringing a copyright.

Those “smoking gun” docs you reference are the real issue, as you point out, but it’s because it pokes holes in this independent creation claim. If google cannot show independent creation, it has committed © infringement, assuming the courts hold that the APIs have sufficient creative components to garner © protection at all. I would argue that they do not, that they are utilitarian at best, and functional at least.

There are a TON of cases that define free speech, but you’ve posted a few good ones.

That’s about right, according to the judge.
I hope this gets appealed, since it would be a fascinating case to get reviewed by a (hopefully) more social-netowrk-aware judge.